Truck Accident’s are very Serious

Our serious injury lawyers handle many cases involving collisions between large trucks and automobiles. As large truck and tractor-trailer traffic rises on the nation’s highways, at least nine states are considering proposals to separate big rigs from cars on interstate highways. By designating certain lanes as “truck only” lanes, the states are hoping to reduce congestion, improve safety and increase commerce by allowing goods to move faster. Georgia, Ohio, Nevada, and several other states are studying a design to build or designate “truck only” lanes on various stretches of interstate highways. truck accidents involved automobiles, and in many of the cases, the drivers or passengers in automobiles were seriously injured or killed.

Many trucking advocates contend the “truck only” lanes would increase the opportunities for significant improvements in the transportation of freight on highways. According to these advocates, the key benefits of “truck only” lanes would be four fold. First, the public would be far less exposed to the risk of car/truck crashes. This wouldnot only save lives and prevent injury, but would also be an economic benefit to the trucking industry. Second, with lower traffic volumes in the lanes, trucks could operate more efficiently with reduced need for braking, accelerating and overtaking. Third, the added capacity would help alleviate congestion thereby reducing travel time and uncertainty of arrival time. Fourth, the argument for greater use of longer vehicles would be strengthened because they would not operate in the same lanes as passenger vehicles.

In general, passenger vehicles would benefit from “truck only” lanes in three ways. First, safety would improve. Second, the quality of the traveling experience would improve as motorists would be less concerned with having to move around large trucks. Third, “truck only” lanes would help improve speeds for passenger cars.

However, the issue of financing the construction of “truck only” lanes is extremely controversial. One estimate is that the cost of constructing a “truck only” lane alongside an existing rural interstate would cost approximately $2.5 million per lane mile, plus land acquisition costs. Obviously, the cost would vary considerably, depending on right-of-way availability, the topography of the land, the need for bridges and additional entrance and exit ramps.

Most proposals have assumed that the new lanes would be paid by tolls. Many questions arise about the appropriate level of tolls, which users should pay the tolls, and the extent to which tolls can cover the full cost. Predictably, most trucking industry representatives are opposed to placing the cost of constructing such lanes solely on the back of the trucking industry. The American Trucking Association has argued that truck operators help pay for the cost of current lanes so they have an equity position in them. They argue that to the extent this is true, a credit for this equity should be applied to the cost responsibility for the additional lanes to be constructed. Please find more information on this website

Cover your Bud, Rear End Collisions are on the rise

One of the most common types of car wrecks on Texas Highways and Roadways is the rear-end accident. When cars in traffic stop suddenly, other cars that are following too closely or traveling too fast can have trouble stopping before a collision occurs. Most rear-end collisions are little more then minor annoyances, but in some instances a defective seat-back can result in serious injury. Seat-back failure takes place when a rear-end collision throws a seat forward, than backward, causing the mechanism that holds the seat upright to stop working. When the seat subsequently flies backward, it can hit passengers in the back seat hard, causing death or debilitating brain or spinal injuries. Front-seat passengers can be injured and lose control of the vehicle, causing multiple crashes; the collapsed seat backs may also block everyone’s exit from the vehicle.

Problems with automobile seat-backs can be attributed to defective parts, including seat-backs, the tracks the seats rest on, and the recliner instruments. Seat-backs themselves should be sturdy enough to stop from moving forward and impacting the interior of the vehicle in a collision. A seat-back failure can interfere with the restraint system, causing drivers to slam into rear seat objects in a collision. In extreme circumstances, the passengers can be ejected from the vehicle when they slide out from under seatbelts.

The safety norms for automobile seats are too lenient and out of date to protect those in TexasAuto Accidents from injuries. Vehicle tests show that most seatbacks are unable to safely withstand crashes, especially split bench and bucket seatbacks. Despite the fact that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has indicated their desire to strengthen federal requirements regarding seatbacks, it is still not required for automobile seats to go through crash tests.

Our Law Firm is proud to have won significant victories in seat-back failure law, including a case in which a seven-year-old girl died after her mother’s Ford Escort was rear-ended at just 25 miles per hour. The girl’s mother was thrown backward in her collapsed front seat, causing her head to strike her daughter in the chest. The girl suffered internal bleeding and a ruptured heart; she died just one day later. The Ford Motor Company settled the case for a significant, confidential amount of money after just one day at trial.

If you or a loved one have suffered an auto accident injury or death due to seat-back failure, you are entitled under Texas law to compensation from the makers of the faulty seat. An experienced Texas seat-back failure attorney can help you decide whether to file a case and get the best possible outcome for you. For a free, confidential consultation from the seat-back failure lawyers at our Firm, please call if you need more information.

I am an alum of NYLS and wrote in and asked Matasar for a refund. After first year, I told the school I thought I should drop out because my grades weren’t that great. They convinced me to stick it out and said if I did I would get a job. I graduated, and of course couldn’t find a job. When I went to the school for help with the job search, they suggested I get an LL.M to make myself more marketable. So I did take additional courses until a headhunter and one of the professors told me it was a waste of time and most of the students don’t get jobs. I sent the dean an email asking for a refund because it’s been two years since graduation and I haven’t even gotten one interview, let alone a job. I had to write to him three times, but he finally responded. This is his response:

Sorry I have not gotten back to you sooner, but I have been on the road a great deal this summer and am only now just catching up on my correspondence. I regret that you, like other recent law school graduates, have found the job market particularly difficult during this unprecedented economic downturn. However, I disagree with your sense that NYLS is somehow responsible for your predicament. You received a first-rate education. Hence the frustration you currently feel must be measured against the life-long skills and professional education you have received. I see no justification for your demand.
I wish you the best.
Rick

I just wanted to share this with you, and see if you had any advice for me. Feel free to put it up on your blog if you want.
Regards,
In Debt and Unemployed

Well, In Debt, you are in the same boat as most of the folks who read this. I think his response was to be expected.That doesn’t make it right, of course.

What bothers me most about this is his claim that NYLS is not responsible. Couldn’t disagree more with the dean. If a school puts out false employment statistics to lure students in, and then convinces them to stay even when they are not doing well and know their odds for employment are slim, and then sells them an additional degree, well, I think NYLS is responsible.

My advice is to wait and see what happens with the current class action, and then consider suing them. Your claims are slightly different than the plaintiffs in the class action – they have jobs, you don’t, and NYLS kept egging you on to stay enrolled knowing that only they would gain from your being there. Keep me posted.

I broke the story in ’09 that NYLS had admitted an additional 250 students to pay for a new building and various other projects. Something else was recently brought to my attention again.

A former NYLS student informed me that up until a couple of years ago, NYLS students were automatically signed up for their federal loans through Access. That’s right, NYLS automatically hooked up students with Access for their federal loans.

Let’s recap. Matasar knowingly put out false employment statistics to get students to enroll in his school. Then he has the loans (up until about 3 years ago) funneled through a company that he is on the board of directors. Anyone else see what’s wrong with this?

Shouldn’t Matasar be investigated by the New York Attorney General for the employment statistics fraud and for his connection to Access loan?

The NYT plagiarizer reporter missed this. Woodward and Bernstein he is not. But now that this has been handed to him on a silver platter, maybe he’ll “investigate” and get it in the paper. I won’t hold my breath for a thank you or credit.

He just won’t shut up. What a shame there isn’t an over the counter medication for diarrhea of the mouth. NYL$ Dean Mata$ar, a frequent target topic of the scamblogs, stopped counting money long enough to give an interview to a Bloomberg reporter and NYL$ alum. No conflict of interest there.

He whines to his former student that he thinks law schools have received an “inordinate amount of scrutiny.” Yes, when scams are discovered, that’s pretty much what happens. Ask Bernie Madoff. He didn’t like the SEC’s scrutiny, so he paid them off. All the scambloggers are starving, . You only had to pay us, and the New York Times wouldn’t have picked up on it, ever. They don’t do their own research, your filthy secret would have been safe. Instead, you chose to have lackeys from your school send in comments about how your new building was needed and your professors aren’t overpaid. Yeah, I read the comments, I just don’t publish the crappy ones.

Listen to him dance around this question: Given the recession, do you think law schools have an obligation to reduce enrollment? I don’t want to give anything away from this gripping interview, but he didn’t get the right answer and it was a true/false question. Fail!

He’d also like to cut the time it takes to get a Bachelor’s degree in half and add that to a 5 year program (2 undergrad, 3 law school) and have his school provide that service. Crafty, Dicky! He knows enrollment is down, and to keep the butts in the seats they need a new scam. And he’s already come up with one! Well done, Dickster!

In addition to showing how folks can find a way to justify the evil they are inflicting on others, I think past and future students can take three lessons away from this interview. 1) Crime pays. 2) The best criminals are the most creative. 3) Quit while you’re ahead, and shut up. Just shut up.